I agree with you 100%. I usually look at people pictures from their composition and lighting skill. Rarely do I zoom in and look for artifact or what kind of camera the photographer use!

Does any one go to a gallery with a magnifying glass, and look what brush a painter use, or left any mark on it? If anybody did then they really miss the point, and will never enjoy art... but only be a critic.

Why are you reading this discussion about the finer points that you care nothing about? Don't torture yourself.

NHL

Quote:

I usually look at people pictures from their composition and lighting skill. Rarely do I zoom in and look for artifact or what kind of camera the photographer use!

Does any one go to a gallery with a magnifying glass, and look what brush a painter use, or left any mark on it? If anybody did then they really miss the point, and will never enjoy art... but only be a critic.

You want to have it both ways. You claim on the one hand that the noise is part of better texture and detail in the 7xx, and you praise the finer points of its images. But on the other hand when a problem is pointed out, you say such details don't matter. If they don't matter to you, that's fine. Just say you don't care instead of denying that the problem exists. There are many people who do care about the finer points and who realize that there are circumstances in which those fine points can make a big difference artistically.

Quote:

1. Can you see noise on the pictures that Steve Z posted at the beginning of the thread? A perfect beginner with a D7hi, None of us can.

This is astonishing. Steve Z's shots, at least in my browser, are shown at something like 1:6 size. He might just as well be showing shots from a sub-1MP camera. Noise issues are best appraised at 1:1. Contrary to what some have said or implied here, viewing the shots at their native resolution does not introduce any extra noise. It only shows what's there. On the other hand, showing the shots at less than 1:1 helps conceal it.

See above. If you could direct me to full size files of the kinds of subjects that the 7i has trouble with, such as portraits, shots in broad daylight, and so on, I'd be glad to have a look. (The link, by the way, is http://www1.photosig.com/photos.php?cameraId=329 .)

Quote:

3. In certain condition you can find noise, just like I can find other defects in certain condition from any other camera!

As I've made plain every time this is said, the noise problem in the 7xx is significantly greater than in its competitors, especially in plain daylight. That matters to many people contemplating spending the better part of $1000 on a camera and who want to be able to get the most from it. That its competitors have their own problems doesn't alter that fact.

Quote:

4. There are several adjustments on the camera that can be made so that the so called noise go away (I must like noise, since I leave them at the default)

Show me the evidence of this. The shots at imaging-resource.com, which are tweaked every which way, still show significantly higher noise than the other 5MP cameras.

The noise isn't just "so-called." It's plain corruption of the image.

Quote:

5. One can shoot in raw and bypassing the Minolta algorithm, and make of the outputs anything one likes. All the mentioned cameras use the same 5Mp CCD (except for Sony where you can't get raw) therefore with this type of output, the lenses should be the only difference! (ie the CCD noise in theory should be identical in all cameras)

The lens and CCD aren't the only contributors to noise in raw files. The electronics associated with reading the CCD and forming the raw files also contribute. And, as you say, the lens does as well. So the fact that the CCDs are the same proves nothing. If you have evidence that the noise isn't present in the raw files, please present it. I've seen plenty of comments in the Minolta forums from people who shoot raw complaining of the excessive noise.

Not sure what the point of your point 6 is. The 7xx has above average luminance noise, which, as I've said several times, becomes a problem especially in heavy cropping and printing at large sizes.

Your points 7 and 8 likewise seem beside the point. An award based on who knows what criteria doesn't remove the noise problem. And, again, this has nothing to do with my preference or yours, or which camera will make us each happiest. The issue you refuse to focus on is that the 7i has more noise than its competitors and that this is indeed a problem for people who intend to push it to its limits.

Your comments about Phil again fail to focus on the noise issue. He may well have been mistaken about the batteries for all I know. I can't see his evidence on that. But I've seen his evidence for the noise, and I've seen it at other sites. I still haven't seen any good evidence from you. Save your conclusions about who's being gullible until after you've shown some proper evidence.

As for color, the 7xx does have some color problems, of course, as every camera does. The particulars are well documented at dpreview and imaging-resource.com. But, again, that's beside the point.

Sanpete: I think you have some great points here. I also wondered why NHL stated that the CCD and RAW files will be a direct parameter for messuring for all the 5MP digicams.

NHL: When will you open your eyes and see that da... noise ?! Noise IS important, just as the placement of a little silly button son the side of a barrel. And saying that lenses isn't THAT important...try telling that to the Zeiss guys, Sony guys etc. etc - I'm sure they will argue different.

Gee, I'm sorry I even started this thread. After about a week of using the 7Hi and printing out some 8 x 10 prints, I'm finding less and less Noise in my images. I really have to strain my eyes to see it. This is largely because of learning the quirks of the camera. If I want to avoid/mimimize Noise, I

a) I shoot at IS0 100,
b) Use the "soft" setting in Sharpness mode.
C) When it indoors make sure I'm using the on board/external flash or make sure there is lots of natural light.

D) Avoid "Low Light" situations

Even my Nikon 995 produced Noisy images in low light/underexposed situations. It use to frustrate me too.

As someone on one of my threads commented a few days ago..
"Did you buy the camera to shoot only in low light conditions?"

this issue pops up every now and then. its part of the life with this camera. you learn to live with the controversy. it also gives other people something to ***** about(i put those in myself to save the server time). look we're here to help each other and thats what we'll do. i hope you enjoy using the camera.

but in the end I really think the D7's is not for you. You will never be happy with it, IMO you'll be much better off getting some other camera. I hope you do... really!

Klaus

I have said in my postings the so called noise can be eliminated by jusdiscious adjustments to the camera, and you're not stuck with the standard default setting like some other! Even Minolta says the noise is there, and they give the reason for it, who am I to refute it?

Quote:

It is true that there are some noises left in the image captured by the DiMAGE 7i when you view with magnification of 100% or more on the monitor, in the meantime, we would greatly appreciate it if you would understand that the DiMAGE 7i are predetermined its noise reduction level aiming at enhancing texture and spatial effect of the captured image rather than the noises left, when you view the image by printed one or the whole image on the monitor.

You've also misquoted me:

Quote:

therefore with this type of output, the lenses should be the only difference! (ie the CCD noise in theory should be identical in all cameras)

What I was infering to is if you do not like the internal camera (Minolta in this case) algorithm then bypass it from the raw image. Once the signal is in the digital domain the noise from the CCD is already 'frozen'. Nikon camera process the picture one way, Minolta another. Theses DSP algorithms do not add to the noise, but only reduce it with Nikon more so than Minolta! The raw memory file let you access this intermediate step, noise and all before the camera firmware has touched it. At this point it should be the same in all cameras (with the lenses as the other factor) and characteristic of the CCD itself since they are the same on both camera. I said in 'theory' because I know better about supply rails, clocks noises, but theses frequencies are usually out of band to the higher sampling rate of the CCDs. If a user is creative enough at this point he can externally complete the process with Photoshop by Nikonized his output and bypasing the camera internal algorithm altogether!

NHL, can you explain this paragraph in layman's terms? It sounds important and I want to understand this better.

Quote:

What I was infering to is if you do not like the internal camera (Minolta in this case) algorithm then bypass it from the raw image. Once the signal is in the digital domain the noise from the CCD is already 'frozen'. Nikon camera process the picture one way, Minolta another. Theses DSP algorithms do not add to the noise, but only reduce it with Nikon more so than Minolta! The raw memory file let you access this intermediate step, noise and all before the camera firmware has touched it. At this point it should be the same in all cameras (with the lenses as the other factor) and characteristic of the CCD itself since they are the same on both camera

but in the end I really think the D7's is not for you. You will never be happy with it, IMO you'll be much better off getting some other camera. I hope you do... really!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sanpete

And, again, this has nothing to do with my preference or yours, or which camera will make us each happiest. The issue you refuse to focus on is that the 7i has more noise than its competitors and that this is indeed a problem for people who intend to push it to its limits.

NHL, in your comments to Klaus you continue to repeat the Minolta mythology. All I want is some good evidence for it. I'd be glad to know it's true. Do you have any evidence?

Shooting in raw is always more advisable, but there's a penalty such as unless you have a D7hi, there's like a 12s wait between shots with the microdrive or one of the faster cards. The D7hi has a larger buffer and let you shoot 3 frame/s in this mode up to 5 shots before this wait become active. You also use up a lot of flash memories this way!

The raw format is basically it, raw data as it is shifted out from the CCD to the memory with the camera settings such as speed, aperture, white balance, as well as your soft and contrast setting (the two that affect noise the most) captured as part of this file. It is proprietary however as each manufacturer encode their parameters differently.

The key here is the actual output picture is not yet compute (ie the actual decoding and the noise reduction is not performed by the camera yet). Once the raw data is imported to computer, the picture is then computed externally from the camera inside the PC with the previous exposure settings (as well as the compensations which you have overided). In general the PC resident software should match the output of the camera, but when your original is off, for example your aperture is too small, the original data is still intact from the CCD. This will give you more leeway to recover with the raw data. If the same picture was computed (ie jpeg & fine) by the camera then output files are already clipped, hence there's not much data left to recover. There a free Photoshop plug-in that you can get!